No, it reduces the effort needed for corruption.
The smaller the circle of power is, the less effort is needed to corrupt the entire system.

Also, it would prevent experimentation. Trial and error is an important method of finding out what works. One governing body would have one set of rules, we would never discover if a better set of rules exist.

Sure as long as it agrees with me 100%

It would be bad. Having more distance between decision makers and the impact of those decisions is not good

It means everything must be boiled down to metrics, and when you make decisions based on metrics you tend to ignore externalities and miss large parts of the picture

It also means every power hungry asshole is going to be drawn to the world government like moths to a flame. It’ll instantly become a very political environment, where human well-being becomes the chips in a games of power

Good? Bad? The format doesn’t matter. Good is subjective based on what they do, and more importantly, for who.

I feel like it would be one of two things… It would go spectacularly well or it would be absolute garbage. Based on what I’ve seen from humanity… I lean towards the later lol

No. Power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts completely.

Oh lol yes I’m definitely on the anarchist side. There has never been any genocides, wars, etc that weren’t committed by people in power.

It would be bad. Governments like one solution that fits all. That is impossible over geographic regions. Take the EU, rules that apply to Denmark about housing insulation would be horrific if implemented in Spain.

Cultural differences are much too much.

Depends on how it’s structured. “Global governing body” could be fantastic or absolute ass.

No it would be terrible. The world is too big and complex for a single central government to run.

Are we talking like a New World Order that acts as one set of rules for the whole world?

Or an alliance of all nations (like the UN) that makes sure nobody gets too out of line?

The first, has WAY too much potential for absolute corruption, the second would be much better if there were set human rights that COULD NEVER be revoked and 100% cooperation among ALL nations.

Sir, this is Lemmy.

But seriously, we’re on a social media platform that is all about decentralization. Of course a lot of people here dislike the idea of a single world government, for all the reasons already mentioned and more. Everything we dislike about centralized social media platforms would be present at a much greater level in a single world government.

Depends. One central authority responsible for everything seems like a really bad idea. On the other hand, one central authority responsible for things like human rights and ecological risks seems like a really good idea. In general I like recursive federated government, with the highest levels having the narrowest scope and deferring most things to lower levels.

one global governing body to ensure equity among peers would be a natural progression of democracy. however, democracy has failed in the modern era due to capitalist greed and thirst for power.

the only way to guarantee equity would be to set worldwide wealth caps on individuals, corporations, and governments. along with setting a world currency that’s traceable to ensure wealth is fairly distributed.

problem is, wealth changes shape or form. today wealth is gold, tomorrow it’s wine, day after that it’s people.

if we manage to find a way to stabilize wealth equitably, we have a chance at building a Utopian society.

I’m of two minds. A global government could be used to keep corrupt world leaders like Trump, Putin, and Netanyahu in check. On the flip side, if one of those people managed to take control of it, it could be really hard for good world leaders to fight back. So, like any government, it’s good as long as the right people are in charge